Partisanship derails six-hour emergency meeting on UN climate report

Members of all political parties traded barbs during a six-hour emergency meeting Monday night on the United Nations’ most recent climate change report.

In a bombshell report, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that the world’s most stringent climate-change goals will not be met by 2030 unless aggressive action is taken in the next decade by world political leaders. To mitigate the effects of climate change on the environment, the report found that global net emissions of carbon dioxide would need to fall by 45 per cent from 2010 levels by 2030, and reach net zero to keep warming within the 1.5 C range.

A small increase of 1.5 C can have serious implications for the world, including more climate refugees, climate-related deaths, and more severe climate events.

Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith called for the meeting last Thursday, because he said he was struck by the UN’s report that found aggressive political action is required in little over a decade to mitigate the effects of climate change on the planet.

“The next few years are the most important in human history,” he said in the first few moments of Monday night’s emergency debate, which ended at midnight. “The decision we make now will affect generations to come. Anyone who fails to build that political will is taking the easy way out.”

The Green Party and the NDP both followed suit, filing their own letters requesting the debate in the last few days.

This is not the first time climate scientists have warned the world that governments need to take collective action to fight climate change. The first warning came in 1992, when the IPCC first called on the world’s governments to bring forward “immediate reductions” in emissions to regulate the 0.2-0.3 C rise in global temperatures every decade.

What’s different this time, MPs from all sides admitted, is that time is running out.

When Green Party Leader Elizabeth May took the floor, she begged Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna to adopt the new emissions targets before the Canadian delegation heads to the United Nations’ COP24 meetings in December.

“It’s clear this minister (McKenna) cares, she’s doing a lot more than what others would do … but the IPCC says we need to do twice what we are doing now,” May said in an impassioned speech.” I’m begging her (McKenna) to commit … to the emissions targets.”

The sentiment was echoed by her NDP colleagues.

“The government should have changed their targets tonight,” NDP MP Richard Cannings told the House. “They should have announced ‘Hey, we were wrong.’ ”

Under the Paris Agreement, Canada committed to reducing emissions by 30 per cent of 2005 levels. The opposition members note these are the same targets first put forward by former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. However, the agreement includes a section asking governments to re-evaluate their targets every five years.

Last week, McKenna admitted to knowing what the United Nations was going to publish, but doubled down on the government’s stance, telling the Canadian Press the solution to the planet’s climate woes exist in the plan already brought forward by the Liberals.

McKenna’s repeated that message today in the House by touting her government’s proposal to invest in green energy, impose a national carbon tax and foster jobs in renewable technologies.

“Our government has a climate plan,” McKenna said. “It’s easy to have a target, but it’s harder to have a plan to do it.”

Central to the Liberals’ plan to reduce emissions is the national climate-change tax, which would impose a minimum of $10 per tonne in 2018, rising to a cap of $50 per tonne by 2022. The government has also said provinces will be able to set their own prices and make decisions on where the money would be re-invested.

In recent weeks, provincial leaders have harshly criticized the plan, with Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario all saying they would not impose a price on carbon emissions. Alberta’s United Conservative Party leader Jason Kenney — who is the favourite to win the upcoming provincial election in Alberta — has also openly opposed the plan.

The federal Conservatives share the opinion of their provincial counterparts. Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said the party would immediately end the national carbon tax if he’s elected next year. The Conservatives also said they would lift the ban on tanker traffic along British Columbia’s north coast, clarify the roles of proponents and government in energy projects, and enforce the government’s “declaratory” power of the Constitution to force major energy projects to go forward.

Conservative MP Todd Doherty accused McKenna — and, by extension, the Liberals — of not having a “tangible” plan to reduce emissions levels.

In response, McKenna stuck by her government’s carbon-tax plan in the debate Monday, accusing the Conservatives of not understanding the ramifications of the climate report.

McKenna pointed out that the Nobel Prize for Economics was awarded to Yale professor William Nordhaus for his work on carbon pricing. Nordhaus’s research found that raising prices on emissions through measures such as a carbon tax is a more efficient way to lower carbon emissions than direct government regulations on big emitters like cars and power plants.

“We have the party opposite working with Conservatives across the country — who don’t understand that the price will have to be paid … by our kids,” McKenna said.

Conservative MP Gerald Deltell said the battle isn’t just domestic, but should include efforts by the world’s biggest emitters. In particular, the United States, China and India need to get involved in the global effort, he said. Otherwise, any policy changes Canada tries to push through the House of Commons will have a minimal effect.